How a tarot image is attributed to an artist or workshop

A catalog entry can say “Bonifacio Bembo,” another “workshop of Bonifacio Bembo,” and a third “probably.” It is easy to read all three as if they were a signature written by the painter himself on each card. They are not equivalent. Attributing a historical image means evaluating evidence: style, technique, documents, provenance, and relationship to other pieces. The conclusion has degrees of certainty. In a set of cards made by several hands, a general attribution to the workshop does not automatically assign each brushstroke to a single person.

The Morgan Library & Museum presents its Visconti-Sforza cards as probably created by Bonifacio Bembo for the family. The Met attributes related sets to the painter’s workshop and comments on differences between decks. Both institutions place the pieces within an artistic context, but retain language of probability or workshop. That nuance is part of the knowledge, not a lack of decision. A commercial listing that removes “probably” to say “painted entirely by Bembo” claims more than those records allow.

Signature and attribution: two types of evidence

A visible and authentic signature, when it exists, is data from the object. An attribution proposed by specialists is a conclusion constructed from evidence. Early tarot cards do not always bear an artist’s signature, and a maker’s name printed in a later edition does not necessarily identify who designed each scene. Playing-card workshops and makers’ marks explains why cardmaker, engraver, colorist, and publisher can be different roles.

The word “workshop” opens another possibility: several people collaborated under a shared organization. A main figure, a background, and a border could have been made in different phases. Without documentation of each gesture, the catalog entry need not distribute authorship card by card. The Met describes luxury playing cards whose style relates to known workshops. That relationship makes it possible to study a visual culture; it does not give access to a complete list of workers.

Comparing objects, not loose files

Style is analyzed by comparing proportions, faces, drawing of hands, ornament, gilding, and technique in identified objects. An isolated photograph on social media does not allow one to know whether it comes from the original, from a copy, from a restoration, or from a recreated card. In addition, digital color can alter contrasts. The first step is the object’s shelfmark and the institutional record. The Morgan identifies thirty-five cards under MS M.630.1–35 and offers provenance and curatorial comments; those data provide a framework for comparison.

Comparison must recognize different pieces within the same set. If the institution proposes that some cards were made or replaced at another time, it makes no sense to demand a single hand for all of them. In the Morgan catalogue there are notes on possible replacement cards and debated attributions. Since the record itself combines information from several phases, it is better to describe the debate without fixing an exact, unresolved figure in a short sentence. The article’s task is to teach how to read caution, not to resolve a specialists’ discussion by intuition.

Provenance can help, but it does not sign an image

Family emblems, inventories, and acquisition records can connect a deck with a commission. The Morgan mentions Visconti and Sforza marks on its cards and proposes a production relationship with the family. That evidence alone does not prove which person painted each scene. A commission for a court could have passed through a workshop; an object could have changed owners; a coat of arms could have been copied in a later edition. Material provenance must be combined with technical and documentary analysis.

Date works in a similar way. A card dated approximately to an era in which an artist worked can be compatible with his attribution, but it does not prove it by itself. If a modern facsimile reproduces an image attributed to Bembo, the actual printed paper was not painted by him. The attribution corresponds to the historical model that the publisher says it reproduces, provided the identification is correct. What is a facsimile separates those objects.

The vocabulary of a good label

“By” usually indicates an authorship accepted by the museum; “attributed to” communicates a proposal; “workshop of” places the work in a production environment; “circle of” or “follower of” suggest broader relationships; “anonymous” acknowledges that there is no identifiable name. These are cataloguing conventions that should be confirmed in each institution. A person writing an article should not raise the degree of certainty: if the source says “workshop of,” the text should not become “personal signed work.”

Even a well-supported attribution can change. New documents appear, materials are examined, or pieces previously inaccessible are compared. The BnF shows with the discovery of the Vachier deck how an acquisition modifies known chronologies of the Tarot de Marseille. It is not the same problem as attributing Milanese paintings, but it teaches the same attitude: the catalogue records revisable knowledge.

An exercise in critical reading

Open the Morgan’s page of Visconti-Sforza cards and locate each phrase about authorship: “probably,” “attributed,” “workshop” if it appears. Translate while preserving the degree of certainty. Then open the Met’s explanation and note whether it speaks of one card, a set, or several decks. Compare the subjects of the sentences exactly. If one source refers to “the deck” and another to “certain cards,” it is not automatically a contradiction; perhaps they operate at different scales.

Finally, choose a contemporary reproduction that you already own and look at its credits. Identify the attributed historical artist, the publisher who made the reproduction, and the person who restored or completed images, if declared. They are distinct contributions. Giving precise credit to each makes the work behind the deck more visible and prevents using the authority of an old painter to sell modern graphic decisions as originals.

Why this improves a page about tarot

The public looks for proper names and wants clear answers. The useful answer is not always an unqualified name; it can be an explanation of how the proposal was reached. An article that says “the Morgan probably attributes these cards to Bembo’s circle” and links the object allows further investigation. One that asserts “Bembo created all 78 images as we know them” oversimplifies and may include lost cards recreated centuries later. Precision favors trust even when the account remains open.

Attribution is a conversation between objects and documents. We can admire an image, practice with its reproduction, and study who might have made it. Each operation calls for a different sentence. When we respect the words of catalogues, we give the artist, the workshop, and later publishers the place that truly belongs to them.

Sources consulted

• The Morgan Library & Museum, MS M.630.1–35 and gallery of cards. Attribution, provenance, and preserved pieces.
• The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The World in Play and “Before Fortune-Telling”. Workshop attributions and comparison of sets.
• BnF, “A tarot that reshuffles the cards”. Example of the revisable character of a chronology based on objects.